My wife and I got together when our relationship was “fluid” and non-monogamous. Shortly after, she became pregnant and we agreed to raise the child together. At my suggestion, we had an open relationship, but since then our relationship has been monogamous. However, after our second child was born and my wife was injured, she experiences painful sex and avoids it. This has caused a strain in our relationship, and when I brought up the topic of having other partners, she objected and said that having children changed things. Our discussions have reached a stalemate.
While I love my wife and our two children and have no intention of separating from my family, I feel resentful towards my wife for breaking her previous promise. This, along with the lack of sex, is creating a divide between us. I am contemplating having a mistress, but I wonder if it would be ethical given our previous agreement. If I decide to pursue this course of action, should I keep it discreet to avoid tension and potential divorce? Or should I communicate my intentions to my wife? Alternatively, should my wife accept a quasi-celibate life indefinitely due to the risks involved in infidelity?
The ethicist responds:
I understand your dilemma, but it seems like you are assuming the outcome of the necessary conversation has already been decided. You claim that your wife broke her commitment, but did this commitment really materialize? The open relationship agreement you urged and she agreed to never actually happened. If your relationship has become de facto monogamous, it is reasonable to consider that the previous arrangement has become irrelevant. For ethical non-monogamy to work, clear communication and active consent are essential.
It would be disrespectful to act on an agreement that your wife has clearly repudiated, whether openly or discreetly. Furthermore, even if you try to keep it a secret, there is no guarantee that your wife won’t find out, which could damage trust and intimacy. Additionally, if your own relationship is struggling, becoming emotionally invested in an outside relationship could further strain your marriage. This could be problematic if your goal is to maintain your marriage and provide a nurturing family for your children.
It’s worth noting that postpartum low libido and painful intercourse are not uncommon, and these issues are often undertreated. There are treatments available, and your wife should explore her options thoroughly. It is also important to recognize that physical intimacy can take many forms. In lieu of sex, you and your wife could focus on other ways to connect intimately. Seeking counseling together might also be beneficial to address the impasse in your conversations.
Ultimately, insisting on your previous agreement or demanding a pass could put your wife in a negative mood. It is vital to approach this issue with sensitivity and empathy, prioritizing open and honest communication while considering the wellbeing and needs of your wife and family.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
My wife became pregnant shortly after we met, when our relationship was “fluid” and non-monogamous. We agreed to raise the child together and, at my urging, have an open relationship. However, our relationship since then has been monogamous. My wife was injured during the birth of our second child and now her sex is painful and she avoids it. (We had a great sex life before the injury.) When I brought up the topic of having other partners and reminded her of our agreement to have an open relationship, she became irritated and said that having children changed things. Subsequent discussions resulted in a stalemate.
I really enjoy my wife’s company and I love her and our two children. I have no intention of separating from my family. However, I harbor resentments because my wife broke her commitment to me and this, along with the lack of sex, is driving a wedge between us. Would it be ethical to have a mistress, given her previous promise? If so, can I do it discreetly to avoid tension and perhaps divorce? Or should I tell you that I plan to pursue this course of action? Or does the inherent risk of infidelity mean she should accept quasi-celibacy indefinitely? — Name withheld
From the ethicist:
I understand your dilemma, but you are undermining the necessary conversation by insisting that its outcome has already been resolved. He says his wife broke her commitment to you. Did she really do it? The agreement you urged and to which she agreed never materialized. If a relationship becomes de facto monogamous, it is reasonable to think that a long-ago arrangement (dating back to a time when a relationship that has since merged was still “fluid”) has become moot. The rules of a non-monogamous relationship must be very clear so that it is not undermined by outside activities. Ethical non-monogamy requires open channels of communication and consent that is more than resigned submission.
It would be disrespectful to act, openly or otherwise, on the basis of an agreement that she has repudiated. Discretion does not guarantee that his wife will not discover what she is doing, which could result in significant damage to trust and intimacy. And especially if your relationships are depressed, you may end up with an emotional investment in an outside relationship that diminishes or competes with her marital relationship. This is a problem if her goal is to keep her marriage together and preserve a nurturing family for her children.
I should note that persistent low libido after childbirth is not uncommon, and neither is painful intercourse, a condition that appears to be undertreated. (If it were a male condition, doctors might be more aggressive in trying to correct it.) There are several treatments that can be effective, and his wife should explore her options thoroughly; It is also the case that physical intimacy can take many forms. Given the impasses in your conversations, you and your wife might find counseling helpful. In the meantime, keep in mind that sex isn’t just about physiology, and a peremptory insistence that she’s owed a pass may not put her in a good mood.
Readers respond
Last week’s question was from an American reader who permanently moved abroad and was wondering if she should vote in the US elections. She wrote: “I have dual Swedish and American citizenship and have lived in Sweden for the past five years, with no plans to return to the United States. I have a Swedish husband, I pay Swedish taxes and I vote in Swedish elections. I still maintain my US citizenship and file taxes in the United States every year. But I have made the decision not to vote in the US elections. Since I no longer live (nor plan to live) in the United States, I don’t think I should have a say in the selection of its government. I have expat friends who disagree. Everyone votes and thinks they should. What is your opinion?
In its response, the Ethicist noted: “A reasonable conclusion is that people who are given the legal right to vote are morally free to exercise it, whether or not any theory of representation suggests that they should have that right. There are many considerations relevant to deciding who should have the right to vote, and there is no single way to balance them all correctly. Since the reason you have the vote is not grossly unfair, I say you can do it. Then you can vote, morally speaking. But should you do it? Do you have a duty to vote, as some of your fellow expats evidently believe? You do not. I agree that a responsibly exercised vote is an important civic contribution in a democracy. …Okay, so you don’t have to vote. But would it be a good thing for us if he did? Would it be of any use to you? Not that I can see it. Voting, it seems to me, is an expressive act. It is a way to commit to your country. If you vote, you are part of the winning block or the losing block. It is a way of investing in a result. You are now politically invested in Sweden and not the United States. Whatever your legal status, it is a choice you are morally free to make.” (Re-read the full question and answer here.)
⬥
I agree with the ethicist’s arguments about voting by foreign residents, but I would add that, given the influence of American politics around the world, I believe that whoever has the right to vote for the president of the United States should do so. — fabio
⬥
I completely disagree with the ethicist’s stance on voting. Voting is a privilege and one should exercise it simply by being allowed to do so. There are millions of people around the world who are not allowed to vote, or whose elections are so corrupt and ridiculous that voting is meaningless. Not voting due to vague personal moral scruples is a slap in the face to every disenfranchised person on the planet, it’s a slap in the face to Americans, alive today! —who could not vote or had difficulty voting before 1965. Voting is done to honor all those who died or were imprisoned fighting for the right. You vote for women around the world who were excluded from voting. You vote because you can. — christina
⬥
As a US citizen Because I have lived abroad for many years, I have chosen to vote only in presidential elections, for the candidates whose foreign policy views I believe will best benefit the United States and my adopted home. I don’t vote for state or local officials; Since I don’t live there, I may not be familiar enough with all the topics. — Nancy
⬥
I am an American citizen who moved to Israel 25 years ago. And since then, I have never voted in an American election because I believe it would be ethically wrong to do so. When voting, you would be influenced (at least unconsciously) by which election outcome would be best for Israel. I wouldn’t make the same judgments if I lived in America and decided what would be good for my countrymen in America. Furthermore, I would not be aware of the relevant issues in the same way as I would if I still lived in the US. Therefore, I believe that those who live permanently abroad have no moral right to influence elections in the US. country in which they do it. They don’t live (even though they pay taxes there). — uriela
⬥
I have dual citizenship from the United States and Sweden, where I have lived for the last 12 years; I also have no intention of permanently returning to the United States. However, I find it difficult to understand how this writer could have no interest in or feel any connection to the United States, especially in its current political chaos. I guess I’m older than the writer and, as a retired person, I worry a lot, not least because I have family and friends who will be directly affected, for example, if a certain person is re-elected as president. I agree with the ethicist that people who vote should really care a lot about doing so. I simply cannot understand how one cannot feel that voting is a civic duty, regardless of where one lives. Furthermore, five years is not a long time and the circumstances of the writer’s life could still change and necessitate a return. She might live to regret his indifference. — Deborah
—————————————————-